DCPCUP-2017-02405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Deno County Taming A land (regulation Commitise January 19, 2018 Page 6 revoke the conditimal use permit. Appeals from the action of the zoning committee may be as provided in sub. (2)(). Deoe Co. Or& if 1(15 (m). The six standards of g 10.255(2)(h), in tarn, are clear and unequivocal. A pennttiee la under continuous obligation he show: 1. That the establishment, maintenewe or operation of the conditional use will not be detAmental to or cudanger the public health. safety, comfort or general welfare; 2. That the uses, vales and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes already permitted shill be in no foreseeable manner substzntiatiy impelled or diminished by establishment, maintenance or operationof the conditional use; 3. That the establishments the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district 4. not adequate ntitittes, access roads, drainage sued other necessary site improvements have been or are being made; 5. That adequate measure have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as be mitwnioe traffic congestion in the public streets; and 6. That the conditional use shall conform to all applicable regulations of the district in which it is far". Dane Co. Ord 9 10.255(2)(11)(2). Notably, the eminence does not allow a balancing of three standards to consul rule compliance; each standard meet be met Individual Here, by the Town'sasscssment and furthersupporfed by the Hungerford appraisal, the C'ntinll site hassubstantially imp fired andd imininheA_the_valua of the'ruklendorf MQeaxWby unathird to one -huff of its value before the COP. It fie beyond dispute that g 10.255(2)(h)(2) is not met in this case and, thus, the CllP should be revnkrd. Additionally, the Tukkmdmh' experiences show 410255(2)(h)(1) and (3) are not met, either. The plant is debbuental maid endmigem the public bealfb, safety, comfort or g roved welfare, by reducing flee use and enjoyment of the Tukiendods' property and that of their neighbors, and creating dust and arise that cnuvns over the property lice. The plant, has also impeded flw development and impruvmmmt of rwigbbns' properties es residences. The CUP shuuld be revoked for these reason as well. Arodoi,mt 1, pg.4